Ml COURT PROCEDURE BETTER THAN AMERICAN

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7061, 8 November 1929, Page 9

Ml COURT PROCEDURE BETTER THAN AMERICAN

Sherriffs Views

DIGNITY OF COURT UPHELD BUT LESS WASTE OF TIME

<‘l think. that those who come before your Courts come nearer getting justice than do those who are chaTged in our own,’-’ said Mir John Bigham, Sheriff of Bell County, Texas,, after studying Now Zealand Court procedure at the Supreme Court quarterly criminal sessions, reports the New Zealand Herald. • Mr Bigham came to-Auckland to execute, a warrant of arrest against John Grey, - land - sgent, of Helenswille, wh-o was-.arrested'-under the name of A. B. Crouch on a charge of Forgery in Texas.

Mr Bigham said that since his arrival in . Auckland he had been interested in the way in which - criminal oases had been handled by the Courts. The procedure observed in'New-Zealand, modelled as it was on that of England, was different in many respects from that of the United States. He bad been particularly impressed with the way in which business ■ had been conducted in the Supreme Co-u-rt, and -in many respects the procedure had proved superior to that with which he was familiar under American law. There was an air of quiet efficiency about the Court Which commanded respect. The whole atmosphere of the Courtroom was dignified, and in spite of the fact-that trial* were conducted and evidence examined with meticulous attention to the prisoner in the dock, cases were disposed of in remarkably quick time.

Less Time Thau .in America. To one versed in Criminal Court procedure in America the conduct of the Auckland Supreme Opurt, typical of ; a British . judicial institution, possessed’ a peculiar" interest. There was no apparent hurry, no desire to decide cases in order to facilitate the business of the session. About 30 cases had been set down for hearing at-the present session, and with a minimum of pressure these would be dealt with in about-a fortnight. In an American District Court, which corresponded with the New Zealand Supreme Court, a similar number of cases would occupy much mono time.

The formalities connected with .criminal ‘cases in America were undoubtedly greater than those "required to conduct a', trial in. New Zealand. It was 'interesting to observe that’all classes:,®? offence® were subject to similar formalities in. New Zealand. A murder trial was conducted no differently from the trial of a man changed with a comparatively trivial crime. ■ The meehinery of the law was standardised, a fact which tended to render- both prosecution and detCwrce more convenient. Ta addition, trials were awt delayed, and. the,cases 'passed through.the Court in well-regu-lated order. ‘This system' bed. decided advantages. Persons awsatang trihl were sent from the Dower Court knowing that they were to take their place oh the list.’ 1 There was no delay in dealing with a criminal, and no long wait for those who, as innocent men in the eyes of the law, had yet to be proved guilty. ' Ih spite of the air of solidity which the atmosphere of the Court bespoke, the actual procedure was far from cumbersome! Whereas in America days or. even weeks might be required to complete a trial, a similar case might "be disposed of in so many hours in New Zealand.

Selecting American Juries. The jury systems in the two countries were very different. In America if) might take a week or .more to select a jury for a murder trial. As many a* 300 men might he summoned' to Court. From these the district, attorney had. to try to select twelve jurors, while all the- his selection was open to question.' by counsel, for the defence. Each prospective juror was placed, on the witness stand and questioned at great length.. If he expressed qualms about agreeing to a death sentence, he was excused. If he stated that he had already formed an opinion on the case and that considerable evidence would be required to shake his conviction of the prisoner’s guilt or innocence, he w*as’rendered ineligible for service, on the jury. By a tedious process every one of the 300 might be eliminated and the.'County Sheriff would have to scour the countryside searching' for more men. ' *’

No such procedure hampered the course of justice in New Zealand. Another factor bearing .upon the .more equitable dispatch of cases in the Dominion was the. fact that accused persons were not submitted to “newspaper trial ’’ before appearing in,Court. In America charges against people were ■given great prominence even before evidence was heard in a Court. Every conceivable aspect of a case was reviewed and when the trial occurred everyone was acquainted. with the circumstances. - Jurors wct6 often excused because they 'admitted that they already made up their minds from newspaper reports. Some cases were-so fully dealt with beforehand that, it was not unusual for the venue to be changed to another county where the case had not received such publicity.

The practice of wearing • wigs and gowns, in accordance with the old English custom, was a noticeable feature of the New Zealand Supreme Court. This was not done in America, but the observance of the traditional Oourtw.ear added to thhe dignity, of. the surroundings. The Supreme Court. had struck him as upholding a fine tradition, Mr Bigham said. There was an orderly procession of cases, a strict letter. of the law and an atmosphere surrounding the proceedings, in keeping with the high judicial system for the maintenance of which the Court existed.